Page 8

Such a disconnection is not normal within one proverb. There is no such

disconnection in Pr 17:3 "A crucible is for silver and a smelter for gold, but the L

ORD

is a

tester of hearts." In all three clauses there is, implicit or explicit, something about the
purpose or effect of one thing on the other. A crucible has the purpose of testing silver, the
smelter has the purpose of testing gold, and God has the purpose of testing hearts. The three
parts are contiguous.

Proverbs 12:8 has the idiomatic meaning of

ypl

, yet there is no

disconnection between the halves because both are proportional:

z...wbDl hyVh^y bEl_h´wSoÅnw vyIa_lA;lUhy wølVkIc_yIpVl

"According to his insight, a man is praised, but a twisted heart will be despised." Praise is
proportional to insight, and despising is proportional to twistedness. The two parts are
contiguous.

Let me restate my argument. It seems to me that if

ypl

is taken idiomatically, then

there is no literal mouth, and the pattern with the two previous lamed's is broken--thus, "A
crucible [tests] gold and a furnace [tests] silver. A man corresponds to his praise." The
connection between the first two clauses and the third clause is obscure. But if there is
literally a "mouth," then the pattern has to be followed, and the lamed has to be taken as
indicating the same relationship as in the first two clauses--thus, "A crucible [tests] gold, a
furnace [tests] silver, and a man [tests] the mouth of his praise." The LXX does not take one
consistent approach, and therefore doesn't seem to me to be a valid translation.

Since a translation should by rights choose either the literal or the idiomatic sense of

ypl

, and since the idiomatic sense is not coherent in 27:21, it follows that the literal sense

should be adopted. This means that

ypl

should not be translated as the idiom for

proportional relationships; rather,

is the lamed preposition and

wllhm yp

is a noun phrase

meaning, literally, "mouth of his praise"--which might refer to the very words of his praise,
the "testimony" of his praise, or to his spoken praise.

It appears from the translation of the LXX that its Vorlage was

wyDlVlAhVm

"his praisers."

Even if this is the case, a more literal sense should be retained: "... and a man [tests] the
words of his praisers" or "... of those who praise him."

It may just be possible to stretch the meaning of the idiomatic sense of the last clause

to arrive at the passive sense. "A man is according to his praise." That is, man and praise
correspond. When you have heard and understood a man's praise, you understand the man.
A crucible is a means of knowing the quality of gold, and the furnace, of knowing silver, and
the quality of a man can be known because he corresponds to his praise. Or, as the modern
versions put it in the passive voice, a man is measured by his praise. While someone
following this reasoning can arrive at the interpretation of the English versions, it is
convoluted and, I believe, invalid because again, it unnecessarily inverts the order of the two
nominals in the third clause. Mathematically, correspondence has the commutative property,
so you can say, "man corresponds to praise, therefore praise corresponds to man." But
realistically it is not the same to say "you can measure a man by his praise" or "you can
measure a man's praise by the man." On the other hand, if the nominals are not inverted--
"A crucible is a means of knowing the quality of gold ... and a man is a means of knowing
the quality of his praise"--the result is close to my own suggested translation.

For other three-part proverbs that demonstrate contiguity, see 17:3; 27:3-4; 30:33; 31:30.

An even more unlikely interpretation would arise from inverting the logic in all three clauses: "One can tell if a crucible is

a good one by putting silver in it, and you can test a furnace by putting gold in it; likewise, you can test a man by